Democracy always produces answers—but only when citizens show up
Na véspera das eleições legislativas portuguesas, o antigo Presidente António Ramalho Eanes — figura que viveu a transição do país para a democracia — apelou publicamente à participação cívica, lembrando que a democracia só produz respostas quando os cidadãos se apresentam para votar. Falando em Lisboa com a serenidade de quem conhece o peso do silêncio político, Eanes dirigiu-se especialmente aos indecisos, para quem a abstenção não é neutralidade, mas uma forma de rendição. O seu apelo ecoa uma verdade antiga: as democracias não falham por falta de soluções, mas por falta de participação.
- Com mais de 10,8 milhões de eleitores convocados às urnas e 18 forças políticas em competição, a tensão em torno da abstenção ameaça ensombrar o resultado das eleições legislativas de domingo.
- Os sondagens revelam um número preocupante de indecisos, e Eanes teme que muitos optem por ficar em casa — uma escolha que, para ele, equivale a abandonar o campo democrático.
- O antigo Presidente recusou participar ativamente na campanha, convicto de que a sua intervenção poderia perturbar mais do que ajudar, preferindo ceder o espaço ao momento presente.
- O seu apelo é simples mas urgente: votar não é um privilégio opcional, é o ato que transforma a incerteza em estratégia e permite que o futuro tome forma.
António Ramalho Eanes, que presidiu a Portugal durante a sua transição para a democracia entre 1976 e 1986, tomou a palavra na véspera das eleições legislativas de domingo para defender, com serenidade e convicção, o valor da participação cívica. Falando a jornalistas na Fundação Champalimaud, em Lisboa, onde presidia à cerimónia inaugural do prémio Álvaro Batista Gonçalves, o antigo chefe de Estado foi claro: a democracia produz sempre respostas — mas apenas quando os cidadãos participam. O futuro pode ser bom, disse, desde que os eleitores façam a sua escolha e a expressem nas urnas.
Eanes não falou do voto como um direito, mas como uma responsabilidade inerente à cidadania democrática. A participação é o que permite que as estratégias se definam e as soluções emirjam. Sem ela, a máquina democrática paralisa. Falava com a autoridade de quem viveu de perto o que estava em jogo no simples ato de votar — e o que se perdia quando esse ato era recusado.
A sua preocupação mais visível centrava-se nos indecisos que as sondagens revelavam em número elevado. Para Eanes, a abstenção não é uma posição neutra: é uma forma de rendição. O que ele pedia era que os indecisos tomassem uma decisão — qualquer decisão — e a concretizassem. O ato de votar, em si mesmo, era o que importava.
Quanto ao seu próprio papel na campanha, Eanes optou deliberadamente pelo silêncio. Acreditava que a sua intervenção não ajudaria e poderia até causar perturbação — um reconhecimento notável de que, por vezes, a contribuição mais útil de um antigo líder é recuar e deixar o momento pertencer a quem o está a viver.
No domingo, mais de 10,8 milhões de eleitores portugueses escolheriam 230 deputados para a Assembleia da República, com quinze partidos e três coligações em disputa. As palavras de Eanes, ditas quase de passagem numa cerimónia a homenagear um professor de matemática, carregavam o peso de alguém que sabe, por experiência própria, o que a democracia pode fazer quando funciona — e o que acontece quando não funciona.
António Ramalho Eanes, who led Portugal through its transition to democracy and served as president from 1976 to 1986, offered a measured defense of the democratic process on the eve of Sunday's legislative elections. Speaking to journalists at the Champalimaud Foundation in Lisbon, where he was presiding over the inaugural award ceremony for the Álvaro Batista Gonçalves prize, the former head of state struck an optimistic note about what comes next. Democracy, he said, always produces answers—but only when citizens show up and participate. The future can be good, he insisted, if voters make their choice and cast their ballots.
Eanes framed voting not as a right but as a responsibility woven into the fabric of democratic citizenship. Every citizen must participate, he argued, because that participation is what allows strategies to take shape and solutions to emerge. Without it, the machinery of democracy stalls. He spoke with the authority of someone who had lived through Portugal's transition from authoritarianism, who understood viscerally what was at stake in the act of voting itself.
Yet beneath his optimism lay a visible anxiety. Eanes expressed genuine concern about the number of undecided voters that polling organizations were reporting in the run-up to the election. He did not want these voters to simply stay home. The distinction mattered to him: abstention was a form of surrender, a failure to engage with the democratic process. What he wanted was for the undecided to make a decision—any decision—and then vote. The act itself was what counted.
When asked directly about his own role in the campaign, Eanes declined to participate. He had made a deliberate choice to stay on the sidelines, he explained, because he believed his involvement would not help and might actually cause disruption. It was a striking statement from a figure of such historical weight, a recognition that sometimes the most useful thing a former leader can do is step back and let the current moment belong to those living through it.
The election itself loomed large. More than 10.8 million Portuguese voters would go to the polls on Sunday to elect 230 deputies to the National Assembly. Eighteen political forces—fifteen parties and three coalitions—were competing for those seats. The scale was substantial, the stakes real. Eanes' comments, made almost in passing at an event honoring a mathematics teacher, carried the weight of someone who had seen what democracy could do when it worked and what happened when it didn't.
His remarks about the prize itself offered a window into his thinking about Portugal's future more broadly. The award, he noted, proved that mathematics was not something to fear but a discipline where success was possible—provided teachers had the support and stability they needed to do their work. He pointed to a gap between what teachers needed and what they had been given. For teachers to be fully available to their students, he said, there had to be psychological stability in their lives. That stability, he suggested, had been lacking in Portugal, though he expressed hope that it might arrive in the period ahead.
Notable Quotes
Democracy has always had answers, but it requires all citizens to participate and vote. If they do, strategies can be defined and the future can be good.— António Ramalho Eanes
I am concerned that many Portuguese voters remain undecided. I hope they will decide and vote rather than abstain.— António Ramalho Eanes
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Eanes choose to speak at all if he wanted to stay out of the campaign?
He wasn't campaigning. He was at an awards ceremony for a mathematics teacher. But when journalists asked him directly about the election, he answered—not as a partisan, but as someone reflecting on what democracy requires.
What did he mean by saying democracy "always has answers"?
He meant that if citizens participate—if they vote—then the mechanisms exist to find solutions. But if people withdraw, if they abstain, those mechanisms don't work. The answers depend on engagement.
He seemed worried about undecided voters. Why not just accept abstention as a valid choice?
For Eanes, abstention isn't neutral. It's a failure of the democratic responsibility he sees as fundamental. He wanted people to decide, even if they were uncertain. The act of choosing matters more than the choice itself.
Did he think the election would solve Portugal's problems?
Not exactly. He was careful not to promise that. But he believed that if enough people voted, the country would have the tools to build something better. The future depends on participation, not on any single outcome.
What was the point of mentioning teachers and stability?
He was connecting two things: democracy needs engaged citizens, and citizens can't be engaged if their lives are unstable. Teachers were his example. If you want people to participate in democracy, you have to give them the conditions to do so.